SPRINGFIELD — A proposed biomass project on Page Boulevard remains stalled and in litigation while opponents cheered a new federal court decision they hope will provide another hurdle.

Palmer Renewable Energy, which is proposing a $150 million biomass plant at the East Springfield site, continues to pursue special permits for the project through litigation, said Peter F. Durning, a Boston lawyer representing the developer.

The suit is pending in Land Court in Boston, and Palmer Renewable Energy has an air quality permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection, Durning said Tuesday.

A special permit was granted by the City Council in 2008 for the biomass project, but was revoked in 2011 after concerns were raised by residents, organizations and councilors. Building permits for preliminary construction were issued by the building commissioner in 2011, but were overturned by the Springfield Zoning Board of Appeals, leading to the Land Court lawsuit.

Project opponents have argued that the biomass plant would worsen air pollution and harm public health.

Palmer Renewable Energy has stated that its biomass plant would involve state-of-the-art technology and would not harm public health.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in a recent ruling against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is requiring the agency to evaluate carbon dioxide emissions from biomass power plants rather than defer action for further study, opponents said.

Durning said the impact of the court decision is still under review and declined further comment.

“We are studying the case,” Durning said.

Mary Booth, director of Partnership for Policy Integrity, among those who have criticized the Springfield biomass proposal, said the federal court case affects how biomass projects are evaluated and could have an impact on their pursuit of renewable energy subsidies and tax breaks.

Most new biomass power plants fueled with wood emit 40 percent to 50 percent more carbon dioxide than a coal plant, per megawatt-hour of electricity generated, Booth said.

The court’s decision “could affect how states choose to incentivize biomass energy in the future,” Booth said in a prepared release.

“The court’s reversal of EPA’s deferral will require these highly polluting biomass plants to use better emission controls,” she said.

An EPA spokeswoman declined comment except to say the agency is reviewing the ruling.